Dear God …

… please no! Santorum got bad enough that I voted for Bob Casey in 2006. Here’s why I’m not going to be voting Rick for the GOP nod in 2012:

In 2001, Santorum tried unsuccessfully to insert language which came to be known as the “Santorum Amendment” into the No Child Left Behind bill that sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in public schools. The amendment, crafted with the assistance of the Discovery Institute, would have required schools to discuss possible controversies surrounding scientific topics, and gave the theory of evolution as an example, opening the door for intelligent design as an opposing theory to be presented in science classrooms.

I don’t have any problem with Intelligent Design being taught in a class on religion, but it’s not science, and does not belong in science classrooms. But it gets better:

On April 14, 2005, Santorum introduced the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005 to “clarify the duties and responsibilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service (NWS), and for other purposes”.[39] This legislation, if enacted, would prohibit the NWS from publishing weather data to the public when private-sector entities, such as AccuWeather, a company based in Santorum’s home state, perform the same function commercially. Accuweather employees have contributed at least $5500 to Santorum since 1999, according to the Federal Election Commission.

So my tax dollars are paying to gather this data, but we can’t have them present it to the public? If the NWS is useless, then get rid of it. But if it’s useful, which I suspect it is, then it’s data ought to be presented in a form that the public can read. I’ve used NWS’s site for years because it’s got no flash, and no ads. But gets even better:

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

Hyperbole much? I might have a problem with how Griswold was reached, but I think it’s difficult to argue that the state’s police powers are so unlimited that citizens don’t have some unenumerated right to be left alone by it. I have a big issue with a politician who thinks the government’s powers extend into the bedrooms of consenting adults.

I am not a fan of Santorum’s social conservatism, and think he was partly responsible for destroying support for the GOP in Pennsylvania, so count me among those who wish he’d just go away.

9 Responses to “Dear God …”

  1. Mike says:

    Thanks to Dan Savage, whenever I hear his name I now immediately associate it with the term “oozing santorum.”

  2. Carl from Chicago says:

    There should be no debate as to whether “intelligent design” or “scientific creationism” should be taught in science classes. It would be appropriate discussion for religious classes, philosophy classes, or perhaps even in discussions of “what is science.”

    At the very least, considering “natural sciences” like biology or earth science, the hallmark assumption is that natural phenomena are explained by natural processes. If supernatural explanations are appealed to, the endeavor quite literally ceases to be natural science. This is something that the “intelligent design” proponents either fail to realize, or more likely, fail to acknowledge.

    Natural sciences simply cannot proceed by appealing to supernatural phenomena.

  3. Grey says:

    We really just need to be done with all public schools. Once privatized, let each school decide if they want to teach evolution, intelligent design, creationism, or any thing else. Some schools will turn out top flight students with a fairly good understanding of the physical universe. Some schools will churn out spiritually enlightened, but scientifically clueless folks who can work in factories… it’s all good. But at least parents will be able to decide what schools they want to send their kids to, what they will learn, what they will eat, and how much opportunity it gives them in the future. And they will do this with their own pocketbooks, and not those of the gov’t.

  4. Grey says:

    Santorum needs to go back to the dark shadows that spawned such an evil little hate monkey.

  5. bombloader says:

    “Natural sciences simply cannot proceed by appealing to supernatural phenomena.”

    Actually this is a purely philosophical opinion. Scientific investigation can proceed with the assumption that certain elements cannot be explained within the model. For example, economic theories can proceed with the assumption that government spending is exogenous, yet test it’s effects in the model. For a better take on the intelligent design question:

  6. Sebastian says:

    The problem with theories that posit a supernatural explanation for phenomena is that they aren’t falsifiable. What piece of evidence could I present that could prove that Intelligent Design is wrong? Science can’t prove that God does not exist. That’s not its purpose anyway. But the point is, a hypothesis that can’t be proven wrong is philosophy, not science.

  7. Carl from Chicago says:

    My mother used to keep a little magnet on our refrigerator. It read:

    “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

    That motto was perfectly fine for my mother, and probably is for a great number of people in the world. Assuming a model has limitations is one thing, but appealing to supernatural explanation at the point the model fails, or invoking supernatural explanation to fill in for what the model lacks, is not scientific.

    Science isn’t the only way of knowing, but it works fantastically well in most applications. I guess the difference is whether one is satisfied in admitting “I don’t know” (or don’t know yet), or whether one needs to make up an answer when they come to the point of not knowing.

    For me, I am perfectly fine to say “I don’t know” and then move on. There are people who don’t do that, and that’s OK. But an appeal to supernatural explanation throws a roadblock into future inquiry, because as Sebastian said, that explanation is not falsifiable … it’s an explanation that can be just whatever anyone wants it to be.

    And most of us know that there is really no limit to how fantastic such explanations can be.

  8. “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

    I’m actually with him as far as polygamy (and bigamy, unless we’re implying that the other two spouses aren’t consenting to the arrangement). _If_ I have a right to privacy that prevents the government from intruding into my intimate relations, then it should be staying the hell out of my choice of partners as much as it stays out of my choice of how we schtupp.

    Incest and adultery are pretty obviously in a different category, as they presumably violate another specific person’s consent or contract rights rather than just offending some moralist’s sense of propriety.